More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical treatment of prisoners and inmates
Retributive theory of punishment
Retributive theory of punishment essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical treatment of prisoners and inmates
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view …show more content…
Boonin argues that the state could ensure the minimum conditions necessary for just mutual relations between its citizens by relying on a practice of pure restitution instead of punishment. In this paper, I will argue that Boonin’s argument fails because he has a different mind set which a lot of people do not agree with. In other words, I think about punishment as a huge different way. I do not think he expresses punishment in a good way. In the book, The Problem of Punishment, by Boonin in the first chapter he talks about how to explain why the institutions are morally permitted intentionally to harm people who violates the laws. He mentioned a solution to the problem with a ‘test’. One is called under the foundational test, which a solution on only morally acceptable principles. Under the entailment
The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
Igor Primoratz defends the retributivist idea that a punishment is justified only if it gives a criminal his just deserts. But what do criminals deserve? Primoratz argues for the following principle: criminals deserve to be deprived of the same value that they deprived their victims of. Primoratz regards all human beings as possessed of lives of equal moral worth, and believes that the human life is the most valuable thing. He thinks that murders deserve to die. Since justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve, it follows that justice demands for murderers to be executed.
All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
The only crime in the United States that is legally punishable by death is criminal homicide. While the definition of murder has undergone rigorous analysis, legal scholars often ignore the theoretical justification for capital punishment. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling in 1976 that upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, there is little debate on the justificatory aspect of the death penalty in law. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the moral permissibility of capital punishment for murder based on ethical principals of punishment by death. To do this, it is important to take into account some alternate moral theories as potential sources for theoretical justification and to consider the observations of many renowned philosophers including Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill and Aristotle.
Forfeiture-based retributivism is a solution to justifying punishment. Forfeiture-based retributivism claims that it is morally permissible to punish an individual who has committed an offence because they have violated another individual’s right to something and there for forfeit the same right or one similar (Boonin p.105). This essay will cover some of the objections that David Boonin presents for forfeiture-based retributivism and why I think his objections do not work
The problem of the correct legal response to crime has produced passionate discussions within the study of criminology. The classical theories of justice present consistent legal action of all offenders who have committed identical crime while emphasising the notion of punishment as deterrence. Opposing this is the theory of the positivist school, which denies punishment as a preventative measure and instead promotes the rehabilitation of offenders through the recognition that each offender is an individual in their own right. In this essay, we will first understand the principles of proportionality and consistency and the importance of these principles in sentencing and then explore the effectiveness of both fixed punishment and open ended
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular
Capital punishment hardly plays any role in reforming or rather reducing murders and other violent cases in the modern world. In fact, most countries in the world have gone ahead and abolished death sentences. This decision to abolish capital punishment may have come due to the issues surrounding this system of criminal punishment, with the morality of the punishment and the methods used to execute it being the main problem. This has led to the query whether capital punishment has any purpose in today’s society.
In “The Problem of Punishment,” Boonin (2008) defines legal punishment, or punishment, as “authorized reprobative retributive intentional harm” (p. 23). Punishment must include intentional harm, which intentionally makes the offender “worse off than she otherwise would be” (Boonin, 2008, p. 7). Punishment must be only imposed by an authorized agent of the state, within their power, in order to be legal. It must be reprobative and retributive, because it is necessary to express disapproval toward the illegal offense while only harming the person or people who committed it. It does not qualify as punishment if the punishment inflicted upon an offender is missing any one of these five elements. In this book, Boonin argues that there is no good
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.